Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diura chronus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Has been DABbed‎. which functions as a temporary solution as Roy Bateman noted. History is thereunder should the database issue be sufficiently resolved Star Mississippi 02:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diura chronus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think there's any reason an apparent synonym (even if accepted?) should have its own article. Taking to AfD instead of BLARing for other opinions. C F A 💬 21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete This is a valid species See here - the databases seem to have been clarified - I will update with a speciesbox and mod. genus page. It may have been me that I wrote "apparent synonym" as a way of flagging the problem: these anomolies sometimes crop up. Brgds.Roy Bateman (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - this appears to be a valid species - clarified on 2 databases - I can't find anything elsewhere at the moment. This should not be deleted in any case - better to redirect to genus page with explanation if it turns out not to be valid. Roy Bateman (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and Australia. C F A 💬 21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ctenomorpha marginipennis. This is a phasmid, and as per Phasmida Species File (to my knowledge the authoritative source on the order) is a synonym for C. marginipennis. Note that the GBIF entry cited above [1] references the same diagnosis as the one cited for the accepted stick insect classification (Gray, 1833) and also cites the PSF. Gray's text clearly places the species as a phasmid [2]; of the very few Scholar hits for the combination [3], not one concerns Plecoptera. I assume that Diura was found to be preoccupied by the stonefly genus and had to be vacated, but whatever - there seems to be no current weight to considering this a valid Plecoptera taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diura - which is a valid genus and there is an explanation of this, with a link to C. marginipennis. I think @Elmidae is correct, but [i] any unsuspecting reader would look to the genus name first and [ii] there is still the anomolous GBIF entry (usually quite reliable) out there. I will put the taxobar on the talk page for future reference. Roy Bateman (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er... no, absolutely not. Diura chronus is an accepted synonym of Ctenomorpha marginipennis, and that is where it must redirect. We do not redirect Balaena gibbosa, a synonym for the gray whale Eschrichtius robustus, to the (existing but inapplicable) genus Balaena; we redirect it to the correct species article. GBIF itself cites the phasmid diagnosis. If anything, occurrence in the species list at the Diura page is a GBIF error, and certainly not something we ought to mirror. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be all be true and noone is contesting the fact that it is one (of several) synonyms for C. marginipennis, but evidently this also is a name which starts with "Diura". I think it is quite useful and important to point-out, especially for non-specialists, that these issues with nomenclature do occur ... Roy Bateman (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be served by redirecting the reader to a peripherally related page. Placing a note at Ctenomorpha marginipennis would be the way to do that - if there is good sourcing for details on a reassignment, which I so far have not seen. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise I have re-drafted as disambiguation. I hope we agree that this page should not be deleted and some explanation would be useful (I first came here via genus Diura) - also note it has a Wikidata item. The databases etc. can always be reviewed in future. Roy Bateman (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments being made for two different Redirect target articles and we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third, straightforward option - keep this page as a brief 'disambiguation' (as drafted): at least until the database conflict is cleared-up. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.